Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

age

250

51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75)

50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75)

51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75)

0.559

gender

250

0.327

f

204 (82%)

99 (79%)

105 (84%)

m

46 (18%)

26 (21%)

20 (16%)

occupation

250

0.711

day_training

6 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

full_time

29 (12%)

14 (11%)

15 (12%)

homemaker

32 (13%)

15 (12%)

17 (14%)

other

4 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

3 (2.4%)

part_time

43 (17%)

23 (18%)

20 (16%)

retired

61 (24%)

28 (22%)

33 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

4 (3.2%)

shelter

4 (1.6%)

4 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

student

4 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

2 (1.6%)

t_and_e

4 (1.6%)

3 (2.4%)

1 (0.8%)

unemploy

55 (22%)

29 (23%)

26 (21%)

marital

250

0.776

cohabitation

2 (0.8%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.6%)

divore

27 (11%)

15 (12%)

12 (9.6%)

in_relationship

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

married

76 (30%)

35 (28%)

41 (33%)

none

117 (47%)

59 (47%)

58 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.2%)

2 (1.6%)

1 (0.8%)

widow

19 (7.6%)

10 (8.0%)

9 (7.2%)

edu

250

0.690

bachelor

54 (22%)

24 (19%)

30 (24%)

diploma

42 (17%)

25 (20%)

17 (14%)

hd_ad

6 (2.4%)

4 (3.2%)

2 (1.6%)

none

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

postgraduate

17 (6.8%)

9 (7.2%)

8 (6.4%)

primary

22 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

13 (10%)

secondary_1_3

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

secondary_4_5

66 (26%)

31 (25%)

35 (28%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.2%)

6 (4.8%)

7 (5.6%)

fam_income

250

10001_12000

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

12001_14000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

14001_16000

12 (4.8%)

4 (3.2%)

8 (6.4%)

16001_18000

5 (2.0%)

3 (2.4%)

2 (1.6%)

18001_20000

12 (4.8%)

8 (6.4%)

4 (3.2%)

20001_above

43 (17%)

26 (21%)

17 (14%)

2001_4000

37 (15%)

18 (14%)

19 (15%)

4001_6000

31 (12%)

14 (11%)

17 (14%)

6001_8000

22 (8.8%)

13 (10%)

9 (7.2%)

8001_10000

20 (8.0%)

11 (8.8%)

9 (7.2%)

below_2000

46 (18%)

21 (17%)

25 (20%)

medication

250

224 (90%)

112 (90%)

112 (90%)

>0.999

onset_duration

250

15.12 ± 11.18 (0 - 63)

14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56)

15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63)

0.817

onset_age

250

36.05 ± 14.81 (-18 - 72)

35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72)

36.37 ± 15.66 (-18 - 68)

0.730

diagnosis_schizophrenia

250

50 (20%)

25 (20%)

25 (20%)

>0.999

diagnosis_delusional

250

13 (5.2%)

7 (5.6%)

6 (4.8%)

0.776

diagnosis_schizoaffective

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_schizoid

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_transient_psychotic

250

2 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic

250

no

250 (100%)

125 (100%)

125 (100%)

diagnosis_depression

250

138 (55%)

69 (55%)

69 (55%)

>0.999

diagnosis_bipolar

250

24 (9.6%)

10 (8.0%)

14 (11%)

0.390

diagnosis_anxiety

250

87 (35%)

46 (37%)

41 (33%)

0.507

diagnosis_phobia

250

10 (4.0%)

3 (2.4%)

7 (5.6%)

0.197

diagnosis_personality_disorders

250

3 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

3 (2.4%)

0.247

diagnosis_substance_related_addictive

250

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.8%)

>0.999

diagnosis_other

250

29 (12%)

17 (14%)

12 (9.6%)

0.323

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2501

control, N = 1251

treatment, N = 1251

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

250

3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

0.406

recovery_stage_b

250

17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24)

17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24)

17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24)

0.835

ras_confidence

250

29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45)

29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45)

30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45)

0.637

ras_willingness

250

11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)

0.905

ras_goal

250

17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)

17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)

0.413

ras_reliance

250

13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20)

13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20)

0.614

ras_domination

250

9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15)

0.206

symptom

250

30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70)

31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70)

30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56)

0.301

slof_work

250

22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30)

22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30)

0.989

slof_relationship

250

24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35)

24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35)

25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35)

0.252

satisfaction

250

20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35)

21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35)

0.136

mhc_emotional

250

10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19)

10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)

11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19)

0.459

mhc_social

250

15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30)

15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30)

>0.999

mhc_psychological

250

21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36)

21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36)

0.715

resilisnce

250

16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)

16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30)

0.177

social_provision

250

13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)

13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.032

els_value_living

250

16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25)

16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25)

17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25)

0.331

els_life_fulfill

250

12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20)

12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20)

13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)

0.100

els

250

29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45)

30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)

0.154

social_connect

250

27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48)

27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48)

26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48)

0.293

shs_agency

250

14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)

14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24)

0.110

shs_pathway

250

15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24)

15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24)

16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24)

0.057

shs

250

30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48)

29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)

31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.070

esteem

250

12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20)

12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20)

12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20)

0.732

mlq_search

250

14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21)

14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21)

0.105

mlq_presence

250

13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)

13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21)

13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21)

0.396

mlq

250

28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42)

28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42)

0.183

empower

250

19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)

18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30)

19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

0.351

ismi_resistance

250

14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20)

14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)

14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)

0.981

ismi_discrimation

250

11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20)

11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20)

11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20)

0.823

sss_affective

250

10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)

10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.629

sss_behavior

250

10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

0.867

sss_cognitive

250

8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)

9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.402

sss

250

29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54)

29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54)

0.682

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.20

0.109

2.99, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.128

0.154

-0.431, 0.175

0.408

time_point

1st

2nd

0.008

0.139

-0.265, 0.281

0.955

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.311

0.201

-0.082, 0.705

0.123

Pseudo R square

0.008

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.269

17.4, 18.4

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.381

-0.826, 0.666

0.834

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.176

0.265

-0.696, 0.344

0.507

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.01

0.384

0.262, 1.77

0.009

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.505

28.7, 30.7

group

control

treatment

0.336

0.715

-1.06, 1.74

0.639

time_point

1st

2nd

0.772

0.431

-0.073, 1.62

0.075

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.28

0.624

0.059, 2.51

0.041

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.186

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.032

0.263

-0.483, 0.547

0.903

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.010

0.186

-0.373, 0.354

0.958

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.359

0.268

-0.168, 0.885

0.183

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.293

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.344

0.415

-0.468, 1.16

0.407

time_point

1st

2nd

0.338

0.276

-0.203, 0.879

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.480

0.399

-0.302, 1.26

0.231

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.263

12.6, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.184

0.372

-0.546, 0.914

0.622

time_point

1st

2nd

0.332

0.229

-0.117, 0.781

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.370

0.332

-0.280, 1.02

0.266

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.95

0.215

9.53, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.392

0.304

-0.988, 0.204

0.198

time_point

1st

2nd

0.055

0.229

-0.395, 0.504

0.812

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.811

0.332

0.161, 1.46

0.015

Pseudo R square

0.015

symptom

(Intercept)

31.5

0.873

29.8, 33.2

group

control

treatment

-1.29

1.234

-3.71, 1.13

0.298

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.56

0.726

-2.98, -0.136

0.033

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.130

1.051

-1.93, 2.19

0.902

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.1

0.409

21.3, 22.9

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.579

-1.14, 1.13

0.989

time_point

1st

2nd

0.364

0.375

-0.371, 1.10

0.333

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.193

0.543

-0.871, 1.26

0.722

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.5

0.513

23.5, 25.5

group

control

treatment

0.840

0.725

-0.581, 2.26

0.248

time_point

1st

2nd

0.205

0.463

-0.704, 1.11

0.659

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.551

0.671

-0.764, 1.87

0.413

Pseudo R square

0.010

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.7

0.646

18.4, 20.9

group

control

treatment

1.37

0.913

-0.422, 3.16

0.135

time_point

1st

2nd

1.17

0.537

0.116, 2.22

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.031

0.777

-1.49, 1.56

0.968

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.6

0.334

9.99, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.352

0.472

-0.573, 1.28

0.456

time_point

1st

2nd

0.440

0.273

-0.096, 0.975

0.109

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.026

0.396

-0.801, 0.750

0.948

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.545

14.1, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.000

0.771

-1.51, 1.51

1.00

time_point

1st

2nd

0.850

0.468

-0.068, 1.77

0.071

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.198

0.678

-1.13, 1.53

0.771

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.629

20.3, 22.8

group

control

treatment

0.320

0.890

-1.42, 2.06

0.719

time_point

1st

2nd

1.16

0.520

0.140, 2.18

0.027

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.301

0.754

-1.78, 1.18

0.690

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.391

15.4, 16.9

group

control

treatment

0.760

0.553

-0.324, 1.84

0.170

time_point

1st

2nd

0.805

0.362

0.096, 1.52

0.027

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.625

0.524

-0.402, 1.65

0.234

Pseudo R square

0.029

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.2

0.251

12.7, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.744

0.355

0.048, 1.44

0.037

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.174

0.232

-0.629, 0.281

0.453

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.516

0.336

-0.143, 1.17

0.127

Pseudo R square

0.030

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.8

0.285

16.2, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.392

0.403

-0.398, 1.18

0.331

time_point

1st

2nd

0.327

0.255

-0.173, 0.827

0.201

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.366

0.369

-0.357, 1.09

0.322

Pseudo R square

0.014

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.295

11.8, 13.0

group

control

treatment

0.696

0.417

-0.121, 1.51

0.096

time_point

1st

2nd

0.257

0.249

-0.232, 0.746

0.304

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.317

0.361

-0.391, 1.02

0.382

Pseudo R square

0.019

els

(Intercept)

29.2

0.539

28.1, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.09

0.762

-0.406, 2.58

0.155

time_point

1st

2nd

0.595

0.436

-0.259, 1.45

0.174

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.671

0.631

-0.565, 1.91

0.289

Pseudo R square

0.018

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

0.819

26.3, 29.5

group

control

treatment

-1.22

1.159

-3.49, 1.05

0.295

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.643

0.665

-1.95, 0.660

0.335

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.06

0.963

-3.95, -0.171

0.034

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.449

13.0, 14.7

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.635

-0.236, 2.25

0.113

time_point

1st

2nd

0.306

0.354

-0.389, 1.00

0.390

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.683

0.514

-0.324, 1.69

0.185

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.3

0.365

14.6, 16.0

group

control

treatment

1.01

0.516

-0.004, 2.02

0.052

time_point

1st

2nd

0.435

0.320

-0.191, 1.06

0.175

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.454

0.463

-0.453, 1.36

0.328

Pseudo R square

0.027

shs

(Intercept)

29.2

0.776

27.6, 30.7

group

control

treatment

2.02

1.097

-0.134, 4.17

0.067

time_point

1st

2nd

0.740

0.614

-0.465, 1.94

0.230

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.13

0.890

-0.614, 2.88

0.206

Pseudo R square

0.026

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.140

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.072

0.198

-0.459, 0.315

0.716

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.189

0.165

-0.512, 0.133

0.252

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.194

0.238

-0.272, 0.660

0.415

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.310

13.8, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.720

0.439

-0.140, 1.58

0.102

time_point

1st

2nd

0.724

0.336

0.066, 1.38

0.032

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.732

0.485

-1.68, 0.218

0.133

Pseudo R square

0.009

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.2

0.380

12.4, 13.9

group

control

treatment

0.464

0.538

-0.590, 1.52

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

0.529

0.363

-0.182, 1.24

0.147

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.375

0.525

-0.655, 1.40

0.476

Pseudo R square

0.012

mlq

(Intercept)

27.5

0.621

26.3, 28.7

group

control

treatment

1.18

0.879

-0.538, 2.91

0.179

time_point

1st

2nd

1.26

0.618

0.045, 2.47

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.367

0.894

-2.12, 1.38

0.682

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

18.8

0.405

18.1, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.528

0.573

-0.594, 1.65

0.357

time_point

1st

2nd

0.744

0.349

0.060, 1.43

0.034

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.159

0.505

-0.832, 1.15

0.754

Pseudo R square

0.012

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.226

13.9, 14.8

group

control

treatment

-0.008

0.320

-0.635, 0.619

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

0.173

0.258

-0.333, 0.679

0.503

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.654

0.373

-0.076, 1.38

0.081

Pseudo R square

0.015

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.275

11.3, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.088

0.388

-0.849, 0.673

0.821

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.438

0.288

-1.00, 0.125

0.129

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.655

0.416

-1.47, 0.160

0.117

Pseudo R square

0.020

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.326

9.76, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.224

0.461

-0.679, 1.13

0.627

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.404

0.282

-0.957, 0.150

0.154

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.742

0.409

-1.54, 0.059

0.071

Pseudo R square

0.013

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.333

9.52, 10.8

group

control

treatment

-0.080

0.471

-1.00, 0.843

0.865

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.656

0.287

-1.22, -0.095

0.023

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.193

0.415

-1.01, 0.621

0.643

Pseudo R square

0.010

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.71

0.335

8.06, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.408

0.473

-0.520, 1.34

0.389

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.451

0.285

-1.01, 0.108

0.116

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.577

0.413

-1.39, 0.234

0.165

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.936

27.5, 31.1

group

control

treatment

0.552

1.324

-2.04, 3.15

0.677

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.49

0.729

-2.92, -0.065

0.042

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.46

1.056

-3.53, 0.605

0.167

Pseudo R square

0.012

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(412) = 29.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(412) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.28], t(412) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 6.40e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.70], t(412) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(412) = 66.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(412) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.34], t(412) = -0.66, p = 0.506; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.26, 1.77], t(412) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.09, 0.59])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(412) = 58.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.74], t(412) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.62], t(412) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.06, 2.51], t(412) = 2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.01, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(412) = 62.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55], t(412) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -9.71e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.35], t(412) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -4.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.88], t(412) = 1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.76], t(412) = 58.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.16], t(412) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.35])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.88], t(412) = 1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.26], t(412) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(412) = 49.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(412) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.78], t(412) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.02], t(412) = 1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(412) = 46.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(412) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.50], t(412) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.16, 1.46], t(412) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.07, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.79, 33.21], t(412) = 36.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.71, 1.13], t(412) = -1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-2.98, -0.14], t(412) = -2.15, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.31, -0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.19], t(412) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(412) = 53.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.13], t(412) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.74e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.10], t(412) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.26], t(412) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.50, 25.51], t(412) = 47.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.58, 2.26], t(412) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.11], t(412) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.87], t(412) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.93], t(412) = 30.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.16], t(412) = 1.50, p = 0.134; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [0.12, 2.22], t(412) = 2.18, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.49, 1.56], t(412) = 0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = 4.36e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(412) = 31.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.28], t(412) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.98], t(412) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.75], t(412) = -0.06, p = 0.948; Std. beta = -6.92e-03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.20], t(412) = 27.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.14e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(412) = -2.77e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.11e-15, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.77], t(412) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.13, 1.53], t(412) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(412) = 34.25, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(412) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.14, 2.18], t(412) = 2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.02, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.18], t(412) = -0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(412) = 41.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(412) = 1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.10, 1.52], t(412) = 2.22, p = 0.026; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.65], t(412) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(412) = 52.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(412) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.28], t(412) = -0.75, p = 0.452; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.17], t(412) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(412) = 58.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(412) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.83], t(412) = 1.28, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.36, 1.09], t(412) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(412) = 42.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(412) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.75], t(412) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.02], t(412) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.22], t(412) = 54.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(412) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.45], t(412) = 1.37, p = 0.172; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.91], t(412) = 1.06, p = 0.287; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(412) = 34.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(412) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.66], t(412) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.06, 95% CI [-3.95, -0.17], t(412) = -2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, -0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(412) = 30.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.25], t(412) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.00], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.69], t(412) = 1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.61, 16.04], t(412) = 41.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-4.26e-03, 2.02], t(412) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.03e-03, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.06], t(412) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.36], t(412) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.65, 30.69], t(412) = 37.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.13, 4.17], t(412) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.94], t(412) = 1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.88], t(412) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(412) = 91.65, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(412) = -0.36, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.13], t(412) = -1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.66], t(412) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(412) = 46.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(412) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [0.07, 1.38], t(412) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [0.02, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-1.68, 0.22], t(412) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.90], t(412) = 34.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.52], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.24], t(412) = 1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.40], t(412) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.29, 28.73], t(412) = 44.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.91], t(412) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [0.04, 2.47], t(412) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [6.40e-03, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-2.12, 1.38], t(412) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.05, 19.64], t(412) = 46.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(412) = 0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.06, 1.43], t(412) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.15], t(412) = 0.31, p = 0.753; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(412) = 63.44, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62], t(412) = -0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.68], t(412) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.38], t(412) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(412) = 42.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.67], t(412) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.13], t(412) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.16], t(412) = -1.57, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(412) = 31.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.13], t(412) = 0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.15], t(412) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.06], t(412) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(412) = 30.56, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(412) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.09], t(412) = -2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.62], t(412) = -0.46, p = 0.642; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(412) = 26.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(412) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.11], t(412) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.23], t(412) = -1.40, p = 0.163; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.45, 31.12], t(412) = 31.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.15], t(412) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-2.92, -0.06], t(412) = -2.05, p = 0.040; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.28, -6.17e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.46, 95% CI [-3.53, 0.60], t(412) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,335.106

1,347.213

-664.553

1,329.106

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,336.260

1,360.473

-662.130

1,324.260

4.846

3

0.183

recovery_stage_b

null

3

2,030.888

2,042.995

-1,012.444

2,024.888

recovery_stage_b

random

6

2,026.947

2,051.160

-1,007.474

2,014.947

9.941

3

0.019

ras_confidence

null

3

2,529.869

2,541.976

-1,261.935

2,523.869

ras_confidence

random

6

2,512.115

2,536.328

-1,250.057

2,500.115

23.755

3

0.000

ras_willingness

null

3

1,718.856

1,730.963

-856.428

1,712.856

ras_willingness

random

6

1,721.204

1,745.417

-854.602

1,709.204

3.652

3

0.302

ras_goal

null

3

2,090.297

2,102.404

-1,042.149

2,084.297

ras_goal

random

6

2,085.277

2,109.489

-1,036.638

2,073.277

11.021

3

0.012

ras_reliance

null

3

1,978.110

1,990.216

-986.055

1,972.110

ras_reliance

random

6

1,972.899

1,997.112

-980.449

1,960.899

11.211

3

0.011

ras_domination

null

3

1,867.526

1,879.632

-930.763

1,861.526

ras_domination

random

6

1,860.448

1,884.661

-924.224

1,848.448

13.078

3

0.004

symptom

null

3

2,964.299

2,976.405

-1,479.149

2,958.299

symptom

random

6

2,961.186

2,985.399

-1,474.593

2,949.186

9.113

3

0.028

slof_work

null

3

2,354.035

2,366.141

-1,174.017

2,348.035

slof_work

random

6

2,357.055

2,381.268

-1,172.527

2,345.055

2.980

3

0.395

slof_relationship

null

3

2,539.965

2,552.072

-1,266.983

2,533.965

slof_relationship

random

6

2,541.119

2,565.332

-1,264.560

2,529.119

4.846

3

0.183

satisfaction

null

3

2,714.756

2,726.862

-1,354.378

2,708.756

satisfaction

random

6

2,709.315

2,733.527

-1,348.657

2,697.315

11.441

3

0.010

mhc_emotional

null

3

2,151.773

2,163.880

-1,072.887

2,145.773

mhc_emotional

random

6

2,152.616

2,176.829

-1,070.308

2,140.616

5.157

3

0.161

mhc_social

null

3

2,579.144

2,591.251

-1,286.572

2,573.144

mhc_social

random

6

2,577.470

2,601.683

-1,282.735

2,565.470

7.674

3

0.053

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,687.374

2,699.480

-1,340.687

2,681.374

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,686.029

2,710.242

-1,337.015

2,674.029

7.344

3

0.062

resilisnce

null

3

2,337.159

2,349.266

-1,165.580

2,331.159

resilisnce

random

6

2,321.453

2,345.666

-1,154.726

2,309.453

21.706

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,954.918

1,967.025

-974.459

1,948.918

social_provision

random

6

1,950.824

1,975.037

-969.412

1,938.824

10.094

3

0.018

els_value_living

null

3

2,051.142

2,063.248

-1,022.571

2,045.142

els_value_living

random

6

2,047.081

2,071.294

-1,017.540

2,035.081

10.061

3

0.018

els_life_fulfill

null

3

2,062.944

2,075.050

-1,028.472

2,056.944

els_life_fulfill

random

6

2,059.110

2,083.323

-1,023.555

2,047.110

9.834

3

0.020

els

null

3

2,556.310

2,568.416

-1,275.155

2,550.310

els

random

6

2,549.772

2,573.985

-1,268.886

2,537.772

12.537

3

0.006

social_connect

null

3

2,913.384

2,925.491

-1,453.692

2,907.384

social_connect

random

6

2,900.933

2,925.146

-1,444.466

2,888.933

18.451

3

0.000

shs_agency

null

3

2,395.363

2,407.470

-1,194.682

2,389.363

shs_agency

random

6

2,389.629

2,413.842

-1,188.815

2,377.629

11.734

3

0.008

shs_pathway

null

3

2,256.306

2,268.413

-1,125.153

2,250.306

shs_pathway

random

6

2,248.042

2,272.255

-1,118.021

2,236.042

14.265

3

0.003

shs

null

3

2,856.852

2,868.958

-1,425.426

2,850.852

shs

random

6

2,848.104

2,872.317

-1,418.052

2,836.104

14.748

3

0.002

esteem

null

3

1,520.089

1,532.196

-757.045

1,514.089

esteem

random

6

1,524.759

1,548.972

-756.379

1,512.759

1.331

3

0.722

mlq_search

null

3

2,170.834

2,182.941

-1,082.417

2,164.834

mlq_search

random

6

2,170.962

2,195.175

-1,079.481

2,158.962

5.872

3

0.118

mlq_presence

null

3

2,310.026

2,322.132

-1,152.013

2,304.026

mlq_presence

random

6

2,307.053

2,331.266

-1,147.526

2,295.053

8.973

3

0.030

mlq

null

3

2,730.238

2,742.344

-1,362.119

2,724.238

mlq

random

6

2,728.702

2,752.915

-1,358.351

2,716.702

7.536

3

0.057

empower

null

3

2,335.284

2,347.391

-1,164.642

2,329.284

empower

random

6

2,329.794

2,354.007

-1,158.897

2,317.794

11.490

3

0.009

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,924.734

1,936.840

-959.367

1,918.734

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,920.413

1,944.626

-954.207

1,908.413

10.320

3

0.016

ismi_discrimation

null

3

2,070.317

2,082.424

-1,032.159

2,064.317

ismi_discrimation

random

6

2,060.480

2,084.693

-1,024.240

2,048.480

15.837

3

0.001

sss_affective

null

3

2,160.406

2,172.512

-1,077.203

2,154.406

sss_affective

random

6

2,149.712

2,173.925

-1,068.856

2,137.712

16.694

3

0.001

sss_behavior

null

3

2,173.139

2,185.245

-1,083.569

2,167.139

sss_behavior

random

6

2,166.017

2,190.230

-1,077.009

2,154.017

13.122

3

0.004

sss_cognitive

null

3

2,176.001

2,188.107

-1,085.000

2,170.001

sss_cognitive

random

6

2,167.621

2,191.833

-1,077.810

2,155.621

14.380

3

0.002

sss

null

3

3,012.603

3,024.710

-1,503.302

3,006.603

sss

random

6

2,999.916

3,024.129

-1,493.958

2,987.916

18.687

3

0.000

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

125

3.20 ± 1.22

125

3.07 ± 1.22

0.408

0.132

recovery_stage_a

2nd

88

3.21 ± 1.20

-0.008

80

3.39 ± 1.20

-0.329

0.322

-0.189

recovery_stage_b

1st

125

17.88 ± 3.01

125

17.80 ± 3.01

0.834

0.044

recovery_stage_b

2nd

88

17.70 ± 2.82

0.098

80

18.64 ± 2.79

-0.463

0.032

-0.517

ras_confidence

1st

125

29.69 ± 5.65

125

30.02 ± 5.65

0.639

-0.115

ras_confidence

2nd

88

30.46 ± 5.18

-0.264

80

32.08 ± 5.09

-0.704

0.042

-0.555

ras_willingness

1st

125

11.62 ± 2.08

125

11.66 ± 2.08

0.903

-0.025

ras_willingness

2nd

88

11.61 ± 1.95

0.008

80

12.00 ± 1.93

-0.275

0.194

-0.308

ras_goal

1st

125

17.18 ± 3.28

125

17.53 ± 3.28

0.407

-0.183

ras_goal

2nd

88

17.52 ± 3.05

-0.180

80

18.35 ± 3.01

-0.436

0.079

-0.439

ras_reliance

1st

125

13.14 ± 2.94

125

13.33 ± 2.94

0.622

-0.119

ras_reliance

2nd

88

13.48 ± 2.71

-0.214

80

14.03 ± 2.66

-0.453

0.182

-0.357

ras_domination

1st

125

9.95 ± 2.40

125

9.56 ± 2.40

0.198

0.249

ras_domination

2nd

88

10.01 ± 2.29

-0.035

80

10.43 ± 2.27

-0.551

0.234

-0.266

symptom

1st

125

31.50 ± 9.76

125

30.21 ± 9.76

0.298

0.262

symptom

2nd

88

29.94 ± 8.92

0.318

80

28.78 ± 8.74

0.291

0.396

0.236

slof_work

1st

125

22.06 ± 4.58

125

22.06 ± 4.58

0.989

0.003

slof_work

2nd

88

22.43 ± 4.25

-0.143

80

22.61 ± 4.18

-0.219

0.776

-0.073

slof_relationship

1st

125

24.50 ± 5.73

125

25.34 ± 5.73

0.248

-0.267

slof_relationship

2nd

88

24.71 ± 5.30

-0.065

80

26.10 ± 5.22

-0.240

0.088

-0.442

satisfaction

1st

125

19.66 ± 7.22

125

21.03 ± 7.22

0.135

-0.377

satisfaction

2nd

88

20.83 ± 6.60

-0.322

80

22.23 ± 6.47

-0.330

0.166

-0.386

mhc_emotional

1st

125

10.65 ± 3.73

125

11.00 ± 3.73

0.456

-0.191

mhc_emotional

2nd

88

11.09 ± 3.40

-0.238

80

11.41 ± 3.33

-0.224

0.531

-0.177

mhc_social

1st

125

15.13 ± 6.09

125

15.13 ± 6.09

1.000

0.000

mhc_social

2nd

88

15.98 ± 5.60

-0.268

80

16.18 ± 5.49

-0.331

0.817

-0.062

mhc_psychological

1st

125

21.55 ± 7.03

125

21.87 ± 7.03

0.719

-0.091

mhc_psychological

2nd

88

22.71 ± 6.42

-0.330

80

22.73 ± 6.30

-0.244

0.985

-0.005

resilisnce

1st

125

16.18 ± 4.37

125

16.94 ± 4.37

0.170

-0.309

resilisnce

2nd

88

16.98 ± 4.06

-0.327

80

18.37 ± 4.00

-0.581

0.027

-0.563

social_provision

1st

125

13.17 ± 2.81

125

13.91 ± 2.81

0.037

-0.472

social_provision

2nd

88

12.99 ± 2.61

0.111

80

14.25 ± 2.57

-0.216

0.002

-0.799

els_value_living

1st

125

16.76 ± 3.19

125

17.15 ± 3.19

0.331

-0.227

els_value_living

2nd

88

17.09 ± 2.94

-0.189

80

17.85 ± 2.89

-0.401

0.093

-0.439

els_life_fulfill

1st

125

12.41 ± 3.30

125

13.10 ± 3.30

0.096

-0.413

els_life_fulfill

2nd

88

12.67 ± 3.02

-0.152

80

13.68 ± 2.96

-0.340

0.029

-0.600

els

1st

125

29.17 ± 6.03

125

30.26 ± 6.03

0.155

-0.370

els

2nd

88

29.76 ± 5.49

-0.202

80

31.52 ± 5.37

-0.430

0.037

-0.598

social_connect

1st

125

27.88 ± 9.16

125

26.66 ± 9.16

0.295

0.271

social_connect

2nd

88

27.24 ± 8.34

0.143

80

23.96 ± 8.17

0.602

0.011

0.729

shs_agency

1st

125

13.84 ± 5.02

125

14.85 ± 5.02

0.113

-0.422

shs_agency

2nd

88

14.15 ± 4.55

-0.128

80

15.84 ± 4.46

-0.413

0.016

-0.707

shs_pathway

1st

125

15.33 ± 4.08

125

16.34 ± 4.08

0.052

-0.465

shs_pathway

2nd

88

15.76 ± 3.76

-0.201

80

17.23 ± 3.69

-0.411

0.011

-0.675

shs

1st

125

29.17 ± 8.67

125

31.18 ± 8.67

0.067

-0.486

shs

2nd

88

29.91 ± 7.88

-0.178

80

33.05 ± 7.71

-0.451

0.009

-0.759

esteem

1st

125

12.80 ± 1.56

125

12.73 ± 1.56

0.716

0.063

esteem

2nd

88

12.61 ± 1.51

0.166

80

12.73 ± 1.50

-0.005

0.600

-0.107

mlq_search

1st

125

14.36 ± 3.47

125

15.08 ± 3.47

0.102

-0.313

mlq_search

2nd

88

15.08 ± 3.31

-0.314

80

15.07 ± 3.28

0.004

0.980

0.005

mlq_presence

1st

125

13.15 ± 4.25

125

13.62 ± 4.25

0.389

-0.188

mlq_presence

2nd

88

13.68 ± 3.97

-0.214

80

14.52 ± 3.91

-0.366

0.169

-0.340

mlq

1st

125

27.51 ± 6.95

125

28.70 ± 6.95

0.179

-0.281

mlq

2nd

88

28.77 ± 6.53

-0.298

80

29.58 ± 6.45

-0.211

0.415

-0.194

empower

1st

125

18.85 ± 4.53

125

19.38 ± 4.53

0.357

-0.223

empower

2nd

88

19.59 ± 4.16

-0.315

80

20.28 ± 4.08

-0.382

0.281

-0.291

ismi_resistance

1st

125

14.36 ± 2.53

125

14.35 ± 2.53

0.980

0.005

ismi_resistance

2nd

88

14.53 ± 2.43

-0.097

80

15.18 ± 2.42

-0.465

0.086

-0.364

ismi_discrimation

1st

125

11.79 ± 3.07

125

11.70 ± 3.07

0.821

0.045

ismi_discrimation

2nd

88

11.35 ± 2.91

0.223

80

10.61 ± 2.88

0.555

0.098

0.377

sss_affective

1st

125

10.40 ± 3.64

125

10.62 ± 3.64

0.627

-0.117

sss_affective

2nd

88

10.00 ± 3.35

0.211

80

9.48 ± 3.29

0.599

0.313

0.271

sss_behavior

1st

125

10.18 ± 3.72

125

10.10 ± 3.72

0.865

0.041

sss_behavior

2nd

88

9.52 ± 3.42

0.338

80

9.25 ± 3.36

0.438

0.602

0.141

sss_cognitive

1st

125

8.71 ± 3.74

125

9.12 ± 3.74

0.389

-0.211

sss_cognitive

2nd

88

8.26 ± 3.43

0.234

80

8.09 ± 3.37

0.532

0.748

0.087

sss

1st

125

29.29 ± 10.47

125

29.84 ± 10.47

0.677

-0.112

sss

2nd

88

27.80 ± 9.48

0.304

80

26.88 ± 9.27

0.602

0.529

0.186

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(373.96) = -0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)

2st

t(410.89) = 0.99, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.55)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(317.60) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)

2st

t(391.45) = 2.16, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.08 to 1.79)

ras_confidence

1st

t(297.76) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)

2st

t(372.39) = 2.04, p = 0.042, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.06 to 3.18)

ras_willingness

1st

t(319.71) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.55)

2st

t(392.91) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.98)

ras_goal

1st

t(310.48) = 0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.16)

2st

t(385.82) = 1.76, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.74)

ras_reliance

1st

t(300.03) = 0.49, p = 0.622, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)

2st

t(375.16) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.37)

ras_domination

1st

t(331.93) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)

2st

t(399.78) = 1.19, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.11)

symptom

1st

t(294.93) = -1.04, p = 0.298, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.14)

2st

t(368.69) = -0.85, p = 0.396, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.84 to 1.52)

slof_work

1st

t(306.67) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)

2st

t(382.29) = 0.29, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.46)

slof_relationship

1st

t(304.86) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)

2st

t(380.48) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.99)

satisfaction

1st

t(294.86) = 1.50, p = 0.135, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.43 to 3.17)

2st

t(368.59) = 1.39, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.58 to 3.38)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(293.30) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)

2st

t(366.42) = 0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.35)

mhc_social

1st

t(298.62) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.52)

2st

t(373.45) = 0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.88)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(294.34) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)

2st

t(367.88) = 0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.95)

resilisnce

1st

t(308.21) = 1.37, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.85)

2st

t(383.77) = 2.23, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.16 to 2.61)

social_provision

1st

t(307.94) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)

2st

t(383.51) = 3.15, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (0.47 to 2.05)

els_value_living

1st

t(303.56) = 0.97, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.18)

2st

t(379.12) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(296.75) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)

2st

t(371.09) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.92)

els

1st

t(291.94) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)

2st

t(364.45) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (0.11 to 3.41)

social_connect

1st

t(292.36) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)

2st

t(365.06) = -2.57, p = 0.011, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-5.78 to -0.77)

shs_agency

1st

t(289.71) = 1.59, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.26)

2st

t(361.05) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.06)

shs_pathway

1st

t(300.76) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.02)

2st

t(376.01) = 2.54, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.33 to 2.59)

shs

1st

t(290.00) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.18)

2st

t(361.50) = 2.62, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.78 to 5.51)

esteem

1st

t(353.78) = -0.36, p = 0.716, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)

2st

t(407.26) = 0.52, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.58)

mlq_search

1st

t(334.55) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)

2st

t(400.95) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.99)

mlq_presence

1st

t(312.47) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.52)

2st

t(387.51) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.04)

mlq

1st

t(319.03) = 1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.91)

2st

t(392.44) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.79)

empower

1st

t(298.96) = 0.92, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)

2st

t(373.87) = 1.08, p = 0.281, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.94)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(345.98) = -0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.62)

2st

t(405.13) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.38)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(328.37) = -0.23, p = 0.821, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.68)

2st

t(398.03) = -1.66, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.14)

sss_affective

1st

t(299.58) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)

2st

t(374.62) = -1.01, p = 0.313, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.49)

sss_behavior

1st

t(298.80) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)

2st

t(373.67) = -0.52, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.76)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(297.71) = 0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)

2st

t(372.33) = -0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.86)

sss

1st

t(288.34) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.16)

2st

t(358.86) = -0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.76 to 1.94)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(211.09) = 2.20, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.03 to 0.60)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(190.52) = 3.02, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.29 to 1.39)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(183.69) = 4.54, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (1.16 to 2.95)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(191.25) = 1.80, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.73)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(188.07) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.39)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(184.48) = 2.93, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.18)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(195.48) = 3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.34)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(182.72) = -1.88, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.93 to 0.07)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(186.76) = 1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.33)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(186.14) = 1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.71)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(182.69) = 2.13, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.31)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(182.16) = 1.44, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(183.99) = 2.13, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.02)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(182.52) = 1.57, p = 0.235, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.94)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(187.29) = 3.77, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.18)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(187.20) = 1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.82)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(185.69) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(183.35) = 2.19, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.09)

els

1st vs 2st

t(181.69) = 2.77, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.17)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(181.83) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.08 to -1.33)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(180.91) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.72)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(184.73) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.55)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(181.01) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.60 to 3.14)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(203.29) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.34)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(196.40) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.68)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(188.75) = 2.38, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(191.01) = 1.37, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.16)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(184.11) = 2.47, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.62)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(200.45) = 3.07, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.30 to 1.36)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(194.24) = -3.63, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.69 to -0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(184.32) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.73 to -0.56)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(184.05) = -2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.44 to -0.26)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(183.68) = -3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.44)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(180.44) = -3.87, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-4.47 to -1.45)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(201.59) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.28)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(185.40) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.35)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(180.03) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.62)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(185.98) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.36)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(183.47) = 1.22, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.88)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(180.64) = 1.45, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.78)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(189.31) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.51)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(179.26) = -2.15, p = 0.066, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.99 to -0.13)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(182.44) = 0.97, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.10)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(181.95) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.12)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(179.24) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.23)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(178.81) = 1.61, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(180.26) = 1.81, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.78)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(179.10) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.19)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(182.86) = 2.22, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.52)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(182.79) = -0.75, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.28)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(181.60) = 1.28, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.83)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(179.75) = 1.03, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.75)

els

1st vs 2st

t(178.44) = 1.36, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.45)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(178.56) = -0.97, p = 0.670, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.67)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(177.83) = 0.86, p = 0.780, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.01)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(180.84) = 1.36, p = 0.350, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.07)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(177.91) = 1.20, p = 0.461, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.95)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(195.45) = -1.15, p = 0.505, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.14)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(190.03) = 2.16, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.39)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(184.01) = 1.46, p = 0.294, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.25)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(185.79) = 2.03, p = 0.087, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.04 to 2.47)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(180.35) = 2.13, p = 0.069, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.43)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(193.22) = 0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.68)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(188.33) = -1.52, p = 0.259, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.13)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(180.52) = -1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.15)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(180.31) = -2.29, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.22 to -0.09)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(180.01) = -1.58, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.11)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(177.46) = -2.05, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-2.93 to -0.05)

Plot

Clinical significance